Global warming data from NASA [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

View Full Version : Global warming data from NASA

JustRalph

07-28-2011, 10:37 PM

New Global warming data. Very interesting

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Robert Fischer

07-28-2011, 11:00 PM

interesting
Thanks Ralph:ThmbUp:

it's very confusing (at least to Joe Layman like me) to start out with

then if you try to allow for the fact the information is coming from the air force of one of the nation's global powers it's tremendously overwhelming...

i just try to believe whatever they happen to be pitching and enjoy the science aspects.

Robert Fischer

07-28-2011, 11:23 PM

then if you try to allow for the fact the information is coming from the air force of one of the nation's global powers it's tremendously overwhelming...

EDIT - "world's"

bigmack

07-29-2011, 12:59 AM

PaceAdvantage

07-29-2011, 03:28 AM

How many times is the author of this piece going to use the word "alarmist?"

This is as bad as the Chris Christie story I referenced earlier.

Journalism, it appears, has sunk into the abyss no matter what side of the political spectrum it covers.

redshift1

07-29-2011, 04:32 AM

While you may accuse me of ad hominem tactics let me point out the following:

In deference to Dr. Spenser it's probably safe to say his article is impenetrable by anyone except a climate scientist. In the past he has worked as a paid associate of both petroleum and tobacco companies and is a proponent of Intelligent Design.

Here's the original Forbes Article:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Here's the Abstract:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603

Spenser a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Is there really any question that Spenser's findings will always deny GW
and always support naturally occurring variances in temperature?

IMO this article is nothing more than a paid advertisement for Big Business or as they are euphemistically called the "Job Providers".

.

hcap

07-29-2011, 05:45 AM

Faith based science?

Cornwall Alliance:

Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"

The declaration states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

DJofSD

07-29-2011, 09:34 AM

There is a huge discrepancy between actual data and the alarmist modeling forecasts from nerds? What a surprise. :eek:

Someone let hcap know gently as he's been earnestly using NASA data for a spell.
Right on.

The fundamental problem is this: the computer model being used can not duplicate current conditions.

Simply put: you use a computer program that reflects what you think is the way things work. You are creating a model. You feed in data and see what it spits out. If your model is good, the information it spits out not only gives you confirmation of current observations but it will give those read outs over a period of time.

The current model used can not take the data from the last so many decades and reproduce the observed data. And if you can not reproduce the currently observed data, what business do you have using that same flawed model to predict the future. It would be like using a handicapping program that has not found you a winner but continuing to use it to make bets.

Real science usually employees a lot more rigor. But, in this case, politics, money and power have trumped centuries of discipline.

hcap

08-26-2011, 05:13 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/24/climategate-scientists-cleared-of-wrongdoing-again/

From Forbes..

"Climategate" Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing - Again

Once again, Dr. Michael Mann and other climate scientists have been investigated by a third party to see if there was any wrongdoing in the “Climategate” scandal. And once again, they were cleared of any wrongdoing. They had been previously cleared by an International Panel of Scientists last year, by a panel at Penn State, and have been cleared by various other agencies as well. This time, the investigation was conducted by the National Science Foundation, and you can read the report in full here. Like the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of falsifying data, manipulation of data, or destruction of data by Dr. Michael Mann or any of the climate research scientists based at the University of East Anglia.

cj's dad

08-26-2011, 09:34 AM

If we could just find a way to stop those damn cows from passing gas !

hcap

08-26-2011, 09:58 AM

Spencer is one of the few climatologist actually qualified in the field who takes the contrarian position. Just happens to be wrong and has been debunked on the merits over and over again by the overwhelming consensus of others qualified as well.

Tom

08-26-2011, 10:40 AM

Now that you mention it, you never did tell me what the ideal global temperature is and why.

Just asking....

hcap

08-26-2011, 11:05 AM

rastajenk

08-26-2011, 11:17 AM

So let's execute a huge transfer of wealth that clamps down on growth, then we'll see some real pain and suffering! Why, that's a splendid idea. :rolleyes:

hcap

08-26-2011, 11:32 AM

So let's stick our heads in the ground and pretend reality is just a bad dream and doesn't exist. Better yet where the sun don't shine.

That will really cool things down.

Tom

08-26-2011, 11:35 AM

Both mostpost and I told you a few times.

It has to do with abrupt changes more than the fact that it is changing. Used to be global temperature change took eons for substantial and relatively long term change. Now we are overloading the atmosphere VERY QUICKLY with all sorts of industrial farting. Too fast for human society and culture to adjust without much pain and suffering.

Oh, so now nature is dependent on people?
How do we feel about the continents drifting around and eventually coming back together for a super continent? Should we pass a law or something?

Turn on you TV - watch all those people leaving the outer banks today. Should we sue Irene?

DJofSD

08-26-2011, 11:49 AM

So let's stick our heads in the ground and pretend reality is just a bad dream and doesn't exist. Better yet where the sun don't shine.

That will really cool things down.
Reality? What reality and whose version of it? Yours? I don't think so.

hcap

08-26-2011, 12:04 PM

Oh, so now nature is dependent on people?

How do we feel about the continents drifting around and eventually coming back together for a super continent? Should we pass a law or something?

Turn on you TV - watch all those people leaving the outer banks today. Should we sue Irene?
Not all of nature is dependent on man. Just enough to come back and bite us on the ass.

The abrupt nature of human intervention; human projects are planned and implemented on a much shorter time scale than natural processes

There is a difference between short and long term events. Continents drift takes 10's of million of years. Unless you listen to boxcar. It is SOOO SLOOWW, it us even slower than some of the climate contrarians here on PA Off Topic, if that is possible.

Turn on you TV - watch all those people leaving the outer banks today. Should we sue Irene?Perry Mason maybe?

hcap

08-26-2011, 12:07 PM

Reality? What reality and whose version of it? Yours? I don't think so.
We are all entitled to our opinions and even our take on reality. But not entitled to our own version of the facts.

DJofSD

08-26-2011, 12:26 PM

boxcar

08-26-2011, 12:36 PM

So let's stick our heads in the ground and pretend reality is just a bad dream and doesn't exist.

Describes you to a tee when it comes to communism and muslimism.

Boxcar

hcap

08-26-2011, 12:36 PM

You can't change facts and whatever your opinion of them might be, the facts do not change.

What does change is you interpretation of what they mean and how they fit into your view of the world.

The problem you have is you have an a priori position that most do not share and the bent to have the ends justify the means makes everything suspect.
I take my facts from the overwhelming consensus of experts in the field, not Exxon Mobil or the petroleum institute.

I will now be told there is NO overwhelming consensus, or the overwhelming consensus is all in on the international Al Gore Illuminati Communist conspiracy.

rastajenk

08-26-2011, 12:47 PM

I will now be told there is NO overwhelming consensus, or the overwhelming consensus is all in on the international Al Gore Illuminati Communist conspiracy.Consider it done! :ThmbUp:

hcap

08-26-2011, 12:50 PM

Describes you to a tee when it comes to communism and muslimism.I expected commie/muslim insults second :lol:

Silly me. box, I thought you would first strike up the band, on the time frame of continental drift? And how the age of the Patriarchs is much more accurate than flimsy scientific evidence, especially when God has likes to play practical jokes on us frail humans by PLANTING dinosaur bones in the ground and creating the entire field of evidentiary science in our minds.

rastajenk

08-26-2011, 12:58 PM

He's tricky that way.

DJofSD

08-26-2011, 01:05 PM

hcap

08-26-2011, 01:50 PM

Like I said earlier, hcap, ya got nuttin. There is not any model that will reproduce the current data let along project likely future situations. You can quote other scientist's opinions and claim consuses but that does not mean squat. At one time most scientist believed the sun burned coal.

If you found a horse racing model that looked promising tested on 1 set of past races, you would not bet your hard earned money unless you tested your model on NEW sets of data your model was not derived from. Then if found if predictive you would have a decent chance.

So you think 97% of climatologists don't understand this? Could horse players be smarter than climatologists, universities and all national and international scientific agencies and academies that have looked ar Global Warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

What the science says...

Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality the events are all within the upper range of the model’s predictions. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling chaotic systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

Tom

08-26-2011, 02:19 PM

Consider it done! :ThmbUp:

DITTOS!

hcap, help is on the way!

serp

08-26-2011, 03:09 PM

Those in the field pretty much all say "I don't know, but the evidence supports this...", which is the proper attitude to take with scientific data.

One side will say "See, the evidence supports this.."
The other says "See, he says he doesn't know.."

I can't say I understand where all the disagreement is... Are there people that believe pollution is not a bad thing? Would it not be beneficial to develop renewable and low polluting machines/vehicles? Shouldn't we be looking long term to get off of oil since it is a finite source? Shouldn't we be on the ground floor of new industry instead of playing catch up later down the road?

I understand why the oil industry would not be a big fan of this. They are the losers here. But that's capitalism.

bigmack

08-26-2011, 03:22 PM

Are there people that believe pollution is not a bad thing? Would it not be beneficial to develop renewable and low polluting machines/vehicles?
Nothing wrong with diminishing pollution. These nerds are talking about rising oceans and dead polar bears. :D

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
...When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

redshift1

08-26-2011, 04:34 PM

Nothing wrong with diminishing pollution. These nerds are talking about rising oceans and dead polar bears. :D

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Comments on the alarming article from another website:

"And while his alarmist computer model was running, this alarmist scientist took an alarming lunch break and ate his alarmist sandwich, prepared that morning by his alarmist wife who, while alarmingly liberated still alarms herself with the alarming sense of love and nurture that she gets from fixing alarming meals for the alarmist in her life."

bigmack

08-26-2011, 04:44 PM

Comments on the alarming article from another website:

"And while his alarmist computer model was running, this alarmist scientist took an alarming lunch break and ate his alarmist sandwich, prepared that morning by his alarmist wife who, while alarmingly liberated still alarms herself with the alarming sense of love and nurture that she gets from fixing alarming meals for the alarmist in her life."
Could be a result of hcap-like dweebs coming up with ridiculous, completely dishonest BS.

8PMtD9z4Eoo

Hanover1

08-26-2011, 05:07 PM

Pell Mell

08-26-2011, 05:56 PM

boxcar

08-26-2011, 06:21 PM

I thought there were all kinds of studies that said cosmic rays didn't influence global warming.

Here's the latest but I don't know if this group meets with Mostie's approval.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

And many, if not most, of the particles that comprise these rays find their source in the Sun. Who would have ever thunk? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Robert Fischer

08-26-2011, 06:32 PM

boxcar

08-26-2011, 06:40 PM

bigmack

08-26-2011, 06:42 PM

it would be really cool to have some third party that wasn't the gov't, and wasn't the "alarmists", but was just a bunch of world class scientists who told the truth without billions of dollars of industry, or a "cause" affecting the data.

Oh well... we just have to deal with it.
The 'main man' on the deal is Dr. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist @ MIT. He's been studying it for decades and remembers all too well the scientists in the 70's that said we were headed for an ice age. :D

His many quotes include:

"we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

"based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

[img]"we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

"based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

hcap

08-26-2011, 07:50 PM

it would be really cool to have some third party that wasn't the gov't, and wasn't the "alarmists", but was just a bunch of world class scientists who told the truth without billions of dollars of industry, or a "cause" affecting the data.

Oh well... we just have to deal with it.

All the world's major scientific agencies, universities and organizations, ALL have agreed with the consensus.

For example.....

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Typical statement:

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement

More. A partial list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _organizations

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States,
* of Zambia,
* and of Zimbabwe.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society........

Too many to list in entirety.
Check out the websites.

The 'main man' on the deal is Dr. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist @ MIT. He's been studying it for decades and remembers all too well the scientists in the 70's that said we were headed for an ice age. Maybe, but he is wrong. Almost all qualified climatologist agree with the consensus. The approx ratio of agree to disagree is @ 97 to 1

There is no AL GORE / ILLUMINATI global conspiracy. Just proper peer-reviewed science

bigmack

08-26-2011, 08:05 PM

The approx ratio of agree to disagree is @ 97 to 1

The consensus we were on a path towards another ice age was 99-1 back in the 70's. Go figure. :lol:

hcap

08-26-2011, 08:16 PM

The consensus we were on a path towards another ice age was 99-1 back in the 70's. Go figure. :lol:Really? Where is that data? Up your sleeve? Maybe on WorldNutDaily.com, or perhaps you heard that on Fox?

I can hardly wait for your documentation.

bigmack

08-26-2011, 08:32 PM

Really? Where is that data? Up your sleeve? Maybe on WorldNutDaily.com, or perhaps you heard that on Fox?

I can hardly wait for your documentation.
I don't do others homework anymore. I had enough of that with mostie.

Hint: Dr. Lindzen wrote a number of abstracts.

Consensus? :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/myth.png
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm

And that's from '08. Many more scientists have come around to the truth since then. You don't want to see that as well do you?

boxcar

08-26-2011, 10:13 PM

I don't do others homework anymore. I had enough of that with mostie.

Hint: Dr. Lindzen wrote a number of abstracts.

Consensus? :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/myth.png
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warmin g+Debate/article12403.htm

And that's from '08. Many more scientists have come around to the truth since then. You don't want to see that as well do you?

'cap will be telling us that all 50,000 of dem dere physicists got their degrees at some online degree mill. :D

Boxcar

hcap

08-27-2011, 05:09 AM

So, ONE of the organizations that is part of the overwhelming consensus said SOME of it's members disagree :lol:

You and boxTOTALLY ignore the pertinent info
In RED at the beginning of your article

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

And then swallow this crap obviously misrepresented by the writer of this trash who says....

"The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming."

So tell me gentlemen how many? No where in this so-called reporting does this 2nd grader of a "reporter" spell out what percentage of 50,000 physicists members are saying no!

The truth....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-more-and-more-scientists-are-quest/

And here is a recent survey 2010...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#On_the_assertion_of_con sensus

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

More...

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

.................................................. ........

I ask you to verify this unfounded claim...
The consensus we were on a path towards another ice age was 99-1 back in the 70's. Go figure.
And you have the gall to bleat out like a coward...
I don't do others homework anymore. I had enough of that with mostie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

bigmack

08-27-2011, 05:32 AM

Here's where you have to beware folk. hcap and his 'data' are absolutely CRAZY about using phrases like the following from what he just posted:

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers...

You see, it was 'a paper' :confused: that 'analysed'...'publication and citation data TO SHOW THAT'... :lol:

It's a continual game of smoke & mirrors. They dishonestly twist EVERY minutia to fit their want.

48% of the American people have doubts about our activities having much of effect on the climate. hcap & mostie simply call them stupid, ignorant flatearthers.

"Believe or you're doomed." Where have I heard that before? I still get a bang out of that irony. :lol: I'm surrounded by NPR types in real life and they, like hcap, INSIST people believe man is ruining Mommy Earth.

Don't get me wrong. I'm crazy about Mama E. From what I can tell she's nutty about me. I don't wanna do anything to harm her but these nerds are nuts!

Bow down to the church of global warmists or else! :lol: :lol:

Robert Fischer

08-27-2011, 05:39 AM

To keep this fair and balanced: Or billions of dollars in government grants.

Boxcar

right. :ThmbUp:

meant to emphasize that both sides typically have a stake in the data and interpretation.

hcap

08-27-2011, 05:50 AM

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers...

You see, it was 'a paper' that 'analysed'...'publication and citation data TO SHOW THAT'...

It's a continual game of smoke & mirrors. They dishonestly twist EVERY minutia to fit their want. AYou are losing it. AND THIS DEBATE

Of course there is a consensus. I supported my argument with documentation, whereas you have none. I asked for documentation for your claim about GLOBAL COOLING and one again your inadequacies are obvious. Meanwhile I post links and data showing the opposite.

How came?

bigmack

08-27-2011, 06:08 AM

hcap struggles to actually spell out what he means.

Their verdict..(scratch that)..... THE verdict is in. :rolleyes: Man is cloggin' up Mama. Don't you dummies get it? Scientists - We're talkin' 98% of them agree. That's better than 4 out of 5 dentists!

Generally, their point is, if you don't believe man is causing the globe to warm to the point that our very existence is in near jeopardy, you're stupid.

Glad to help spell it out for ya, hcap >>

rastajenk

08-27-2011, 06:27 AM

Yeah, that 4 cm in 20 years chart is pretty scary. It's enough to make one begin taking survivalist training.

hcap

08-27-2011, 06:34 AM

hcap struggles to actually spell out what he means.

I spelled it quite clearly. You are the proverbial horse that can be led to water

bigmack

08-27-2011, 06:52 AM

Yeah, that 4 cm in 20 years chart is pretty scary. It's enough to make one begin taking survivalist training.
Backyard home programs taught online. BelieveItOrSuffer.com

Underwater is the best defense. And then one word...Plastics! :jump:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/graduate_1700251i.jpg

Tom

08-27-2011, 11:02 AM

Whoever is right, the point is moot.
China and India will never cooperate, so why the hell should we worry about us doing it?

hcap, the problem is not our light bulbs.
In true liberal madness, we have to give our bulbs and buy the more expensive crap from China, costing us consumer dollars, jobs, and what we get back is far more pollution cause my making the new bulb than the old ones ever generate by their use.

Libs cannot ever see how A and B interact - they only see single issue feel good stuff and always make things worse by trying to ineptly fix what isn't broken. Comes from them worrying about PC eduction instead of real education. They breed failure.

Tom

08-27-2011, 11:04 AM

And then one word...Plastics! :jump:

One more word - nylon.

so.cal.fan

08-27-2011, 12:01 PM

Global..W H A T????????????????

boxcar

08-27-2011, 12:37 PM

I spelled it quite clearly. You are the proverbial horse that can be led to water

If so, what does that make you: The proverbial jackass who can be led to the kool-aid fountain? :D

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage

08-28-2011, 05:11 AM

Wooley would agree.......I don't see how. Are you saying that particular news article had some sort of biased slant?

I didn't see it as anything except a reporting of the facts.

Quite a difference.

PaceAdvantage

08-28-2011, 05:14 AM

"Believe or you're doomed." Where have I heard that before? I still get a bang out of that irony. :lol:Me too...

Don't mind me...I'm on hurricane watch...

bigmack

08-28-2011, 05:40 AM

Me too...

Don't mind me...I'm on hurricane watch...
I saw some nuts playing hockey in Times Square. No traffic. What a trip.

Ya'll just locked in lookin' out yer winders er what?

hcap is scouring blogs to find any measurements of man made CO2 found in Irene.

PaceAdvantage

08-28-2011, 06:42 AM

I saw some nuts playing hockey in Times Square. No traffic. What a trip.

Ya'll just locked in lookin' out yer winders er what?

hcap is scouring blogs to find any measurements of man made CO2 found in Irene.So far, this storm has been nothing more than your typical fall/winter nor'easter...The eye is almost here, and the wind hasn't been anywhere near that impressive as far as I can tell. In fact, I remember being more concerned during some of the fall/winter storms that rolled through here recently.

I guess it all depends on where you live and how the storm tracked by you. Plus, it's significantly weaker now than when it first hit the US.

DJofSD

08-28-2011, 07:28 AM

Mike, what about the storm surge? I heard that is expected to be the real danger for the low areas.

bigmack

08-28-2011, 03:58 PM

So far, this storm has been nothing more than your typical fall/winter nor'easter...The eye is almost here, and the wind hasn't been anywhere near that impressive as far as I can tell. In fact, I remember being more concerned during some of the fall/winter storms that rolled through here recently.
I'm continually amused by reporters trying to sensationalize weather events by "pulling a Geraldo" and putting themselves in precarious situations. Find the windiest place, et al. This ill-informed loon stood in raw sewage foam for "complete storm coverage."

I hope he doesn't contract dysentery or grow a third eye as a result of his ignorance.

j5TkSTdbbLQ

DJofSD

08-28-2011, 04:09 PM

Maybe the reporter thought the stuff was from the local Star Bucks.

Tom

08-28-2011, 05:23 PM

What a moron!

He probably though he was in his news archive room.

PaceAdvantage

08-29-2011, 11:51 PM

Well, I guess I kind of jinxed myself...power has been out since 945am Sunday morning, and thanks to an uprooted tree a few blocks away, it seems power will remain out until at least tomorrow...there were work crews finally on the scene earlier tonight, but they have since left...I guess nobody has heard of floodlights...oh well, so much for "working around the clock until everyone's power has been restored..."

bigmack

08-30-2011, 12:55 AM